House Overwhelmingly Passes Sweeping Education Reform Bill

The House has overwhelmingly passed legislation to overhaul the main
federal law for K-12 education.

The final bill, which would set new demands for states and school
districts to improve student achievement, is expected to be approved by
the Senate as early as Dec. 18 before heading to the White House.

On a vote of 381-41, with huge majorities from both political
parties, the House members passed the bipartisan package Dec. 13. The
vote came just two days after a key panel of House and Senate lawmakers
signed off on the final deal.

President Bush issued a statement following the committee vote on
Dec. 11 praising the lawmakers for "agreeing on a series of profound
reforms to help provide our children the best education possible." The
president is expected to sign the bill, perhaps before Christmas.

The White House and congressional architects of the bill to
reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act say its central
thrusts are to bolster academic achievement and close the nagging gap
in achievement between disadvantaged students and their better-off
peers.

It would require states and school districts to gradually
demonstrate progress toward ensuring all students are academically
proficient—as defined by each state—within 12 years. It
calls for statewide testing in reading and mathematics each year in
grades 3-8; increases flexibility—especially for
districts—in spending federal aid; and provides new options to
children in persistently poor-performing schools.

"This, I think, is legislation that has been bipartisan in the best
sense of the word," said Rep. George Miller of California, the ranking
Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee. "I think
we have a bill that we can be proud of. I also think we have a bill
that will work."

One major sticking point had been Democrats' demand for more
funding-beyond sizable increases already approved in separate
appropriations bills passed by both chambers—but they apparently
abandoned that effort as the year ebbed and the bill in all other
respects was ready to go. In any case, the Democrats had already made
significant gains on the spending front, having persuaded President
Bush several months ago to make an extra $4 billion available for
education.

Former Chairman Unhappy

The plan to reauthorize the ESEA was passed on a voice vote by a
39-member panel of House and Senate lawmakers. That conference
committee had been assigned to reconcile differences between the two
chambers' versions of the ESEA legislation. But at least two members of
the panel, Sens. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., and James M. Jeffords, I-Vt.,
said they would not support the final bill when it comes before the
Senate because it excluded a plan to lock in big spending increases for
special education.

"I feel very strongly that what we have done, without the funding,
is going to be counterproductive and very discouraging," said Sen.
Jeffords, who was the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions Committee until he announced plans earlier this year to
quit the Republican Party. His decision to become an Independent, and
support the Democrats in votes to organize the Senate's governance,
flipped the balance of power in the Senate to the Democrats.

But other members who backed the special education provision argued
that, on balance, the bill was still worth supporting, even if funding
levels for special education and other ESEA provisions would not be as
high as they had hoped. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., the current
chairman of the Senate education committee, pointed to provisions in
the bill that would expand opportunities for educators' professional
development, provide money to help schools reduce class sizes, and
expand and strengthen after-school programs. He also said that the bill
would better target federal resources at the neediest children and
provide new support and resources for failing schools.

"I regret that we are not going to be able to reach all of the
children that could benefit from these kinds of programs," he said. "We
will see a significant increase in the resources." But he vowed that
Democrats would push again next year for more money.

"We're going to have to battle next year, and the year after. That's
the way this process works," Sen. Kennedy said.The debate over special
education had been one of the thorniest matters to resolve in the
conference committee. The Senate bill contained a provision that would
have shifted funding under a separate law, the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, from the "discretionary" to the "mandatory"
side of the federal budget, thus avoiding the annual appropriations
process and locking in increases for years to come.

After such a proposal was defeated by the conference committee Nov.
30, a leading proponent of the budget change, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa,
made a last-ditch effort at the final meeting on Dec. 11. Responding to
GOP complaints that approving the mandatory-spending proposal would
reduce the incentive to overhaul the IDEA, which is up for
reauthorization next year, Mr. Harkin offered a revised proposal that
would not kick in until Congress reauthorized the IDEA or the beginning
of fiscal 2003 (next Oct. 1), whichever came first.

"I think we all agree that full funding is the right thing to do. It
seems that … our disagreement arose over how, and most
importantly, when full funding [should occur]," Sen. Harkin said.

But many Republicans were not persuaded by Mr. Harkin's new offer,
which was opposed by President Bush.

"To move the account from discretionary to mandatory is not a fight
over whether special education is going to be funded," said Sen. Judd
Gregg of New Hampshire, the ranking Republican on the Senate education
committee. "It is a smoke screen to allow the appropriations committee
to free up $7 billion under the [budget] caps that they can spend
however they want. This is a technical, inside-the-Beltway game."

Indeed, several Democrats have suggested that the proposed budget
change would allow Congress to shift the discretionary dollars set
aside for special education to other programs, especially the Title I
program for disadvantaged students. Rep. John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, the
chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, said
Congress had made significant strides in recent years in providing more
federal money for special education.

"Since 1995, we have worked in a bipartisan fashion to increase
funding for IDEA dramatically," he said, suggesting the state grants
under the progam had risen by 173 percent.

"Let's be honest about this," Rep. Boehner added. "Last year, when
we didn't step up to meet our commitment for IDEA, we just happened to
find room for a [new] $1.2 billion school construction program." That
program was a top priority of Sen. Harkin and other Democrats.

Sen. Harkin's revised amendment, while approved on the Senate side
of the conference committee by all Democrats and four Republicans, was
defeated by House Republicans, who had an 8-6 majority on the House
portion of the conference committee. For an agreement to be included in
the final bill, a majority of the conferees in both chambers must agree
to it.

Private Tutoring

Some Republicans were especially enthusiastic about provisions in
the bill that would allow parents new options when a poor-performing
school failed to make sufficient progress over time. After two
consecutive years of not making adequate progress, a school would have
to provide public school choice. After three years, parents could
direct a portion of the school's Title I aid to pay for private
tutoring.

Republicans said that the tutoring would kick in as soon as next
fall at schools the Department of Education has already identified as
failing. For example, Republican aides estimate that about 3,000
schools would have to begin providing tutoring or other supplemental
services for the next school year.

"[This bill] will mean new options for students in failing public
schools, including public charter school choice and supplemental
educational services from private providers, options that many will be
able to use as soon as this coming August," said Rep. Boehner.

The bill is facing some opposition from national groups involved in
education issues. For example, both the American Association of School
Administrators and National School Boards Association have indicated
they will oppose the bill, citing especially the exclusion of the
provision to make special education spending mandatory.

Mary Conk, a legislative specialist at the AASA, also said she
thought the bill is heavy- handed. "We're just federalizing a lot of
these things," she said. The bill's new requirements, including the
expanded testing, have especially riled the National Conference of
State Legislatures, which sent a scathing letter to Congress in
September about the bill. Sandy Kress, President Bush's chief education
adviser, met earlier this month with NCSL members who were in
Washington.

Asked whether recent developments—or Mr. Kress' talk—had
changed their minds, state Sen. Jane L. Krentz, D-Minn., and the
chairwoman of the NCSL's education, labor, and workforce development
committee, said no. She said the group's leaders, both Republicans and
Democrats, were unanimous in their displeasure.

"We do not like this bill, from what we know about it right now,"
she said last week. "It's more an issue of states' responsibilities
versus the feds, and us being really, really tired of unfunded
mandates."

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.